Paranoia runs deep in the Ed Brown case

[Imalawman]

Erika Hayasaki
Times Staff Writer
2176 words
20 July 2007
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
A-1


"You remember that little gentleman in China, Tiananmen Square?" Ed says, peering through his sunglasses. "He was the same as we are. You can scare me, you can kill me, but you can't intimidate me."

Huh?

"The government, Ed says, is at a point of "communism in its purist form." Elaine nods. "It's not communism though," says the Massachusetts man. "It's totalitarianism." "It's Marxism," interjects Tibbetts, 60. "No, no, no, guys, guys, don't give me that," says Ed, raising his voice. "I've done 15 years of research here."

I laughed out loud when I read that; just imagining the scene there cracks me up. What a bunch of loons.

There are 250,000 to 500,000 people in the United States who are tax protesters, says JJ MacNab, a financial analyst who has written a book on the issue and testified before Congress on behalf of law enforcement.

Does this mean that its finished and off to the printer? If so, where can we place our orders? What cities are you currently booking for your signing tour? Inquiring minds want to know.

[John J. Bulten]

FYI, if you've got Title 26 up your sleeve, please show me the part where it says that 'I' have to pay.

Tango Mike, welcome from the minority report. My explication of tax law (as forum moderator for Lost Horizons dotcom), for educational purposes only, may naturally be vociferously denied by the regulars.

And what is the definition of "taxable income"?

It appears in Section 63, which uses "gross income" from Section 61, which uses "income" from the 16th Amendment, which is defined by USSC in:
- Stratton's Independence v Howbert, 231 US 399 (re 1909 tax)
- Brushaber v Union Pacific, 240 US 1
- Stanton v Baltic, 240 US 103
- Towne v Eisner, 245 US 418
- Peck v Lowe, 247 US 165
- Eisner v Macomber, 252 US 189
- Merchants v Smietanka, 255 US 509
- CIR v Glenshaw, 348 US 426
Very generally, it means anything which the US executive branch can reasonably demonstrate to be (a) measurable gain or profit and (b) subject to Congressional power to tax by excise, duty, or impost.

You provided no fact basis to demonstrate that "you" have to pay. However, the federal government has provided innumerable ways to complete such a demonstration. Most commonly, you might have received a W-2 filed with the SSA, which evidences that you received certain amounts of statutory "wages" as defined in 26 USC Sections 3121(a) and 3401(a) (and relying on terms that appear in 3121(b), (e), (h), 3401(c), 7651(1), (4), and 7701(c), among others). If correct, W-2 is evidence that your receipts were "wages" as defined and thereby "income", invoking the string of 26 USC sections which Famspear references relatively accurately.

In short, the recipient of a correct W-2 has to pay the tax, which is generally nonzero. The duty rests with you, as a W-2 recipient, to determine whether the amount of statutory "wages" was reported correctly, in conjunction with the facts of your case and the laws defining wages. Of course, the law also provides a method for correcting an erroneous W-2, such as by the payor filing W-2c or the payee filing 4852, completely, truthfully, and correctly.

In general, statutory "wages" are not necessarily the same as pay for work. "Wages" are payments for activity within Congressional power to tax by excise, duty, or impost. But being paid for work in itself (i.e., unattached to any activities within this power of taxation) is inalienable, as evidenced by:
- Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36
- Butchers' Union v Crescent City, 111 US 746
- Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356
- Minnesota v Barber, 136 US 313
- Allgeyer v Louisiana, 165 US 578
- Lochner v New York, 198 US 45
- Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78
- Chicago Burlington v McGuire, 219 US 549
- Smith v Texas, 233 US 630
- Truax v Raich, 239 US 33
- Adams v Tanner, 244 US 590
- New York Life v Dodge, 246 US 357
- Truax v Corrigan, 257 US 312
- Adkins v Children's Hospital, 261 US 525
- Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390
- Pierce v Society of Sisters, 268 US 510
- Farrington v Tokushige, 273 US 284
- Massachusetts Board v Murgia, 427 US 307

By the way it's "Alfa November". It's also easy to misspell Juliett, Whiskey, and Xray.

[Cpt Banjo]

In general, statutory "wages" are not necessarily the same as pay for work. "Wages" are payments for activity within Congressional power to tax by excise, duty, or impost.

And since an excise may be based upon the mere receipt of property, the receipt of pay for work may be taxed by an excise, regardless of the type of activity that generated the payment.

But being paid for work in itself (i.e., unattached to any activities within this power of taxation) is inalienable, as evidenced by

A list of cases, none of which dealt with the federal taxing power and at least one of which (Adkins) has been overruled.

It's also easy to misspell Juliett...

Yes, it is.

[TMoore]

FYI, if you've got Title 26 up your sleeve, please show me the part where it says that 'I' have to pay.

Tango Mike, welcome from the minority report. My explication of tax law (as forum moderator for Lost Horizons dotcom), for educational purposes only, may naturally be vociferously denied by the regulars.

And what is the definition of "taxable income"?

It appears in Section 63, which uses "gross income" from Section 61, which uses "income" from the 16th Amendment, which is defined by USSC in:
- Stratton's Independence v Howbert, 231 US 399 (re 1909 tax)
- Brushaber v Union Pacific, 240 US 1
- Stanton v Baltic, 240 US 103
- Towne v Eisner, 245 US 418
- Peck v Lowe, 247 US 165
- Eisner v Macomber, 252 US 189
- Merchants v Smietanka, 255 US 509
- CIR v Glenshaw, 348 US 426
Very generally, it means anything which the US executive branch can reasonably demonstrate to be (a) measurable gain or profit and (b) subject to Congressional power to tax by excise, duty, or impost.

You provided no fact basis to demonstrate that "you" have to pay. However, the federal government has provided innumerable ways to complete such a demonstration. Most commonly, you might have received a W-2 filed with the SSA, which evidences that you received certain amounts of statutory "wages" as defined in 26 USC Sections 3121(a) and 3401(a) (and relying on terms that appear in 3121(b), (e), (h), 3401(c), 7651(1), (4), and 7701(c), among others). If correct, W-2 is evidence that your receipts were "wages" as defined and thereby "income", invoking the string of 26 USC sections which Famspear references relatively accurately.

In short, the recipient of a correct W-2 has to pay the tax, which is generally nonzero. The duty rests with you, as a W-2 recipient, to determine whether the amount of statutory "wages" was reported correctly, in conjunction with the facts of your case and the laws defining wages. Of course, the law also provides a method for correcting an erroneous W-2, such as by the payor filing W-2c or the payee filing 4852, completely, truthfully, and correctly.

In general, statutory "wages" are not necessarily the same as pay for work. "Wages" are payments for activity within Congressional power to tax by excise, duty, or impost. But being paid for work in itself (i.e., unattached to any activities within this power of taxation) is inalienable, as evidenced by:
- Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36
- Butchers' Union v Crescent City, 111 US 746
- Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356
- Minnesota v Barber, 136 US 313
- Allgeyer v Louisiana, 165 US 578
- Lochner v New York, 198 US 45
- Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78
- Chicago Burlington v McGuire, 219 US 549
- Smith v Texas, 233 US 630
- Truax v Raich, 239 US 33
- Adams v Tanner, 244 US 590
- New York Life v Dodge, 246 US 357
- Truax v Corrigan, 257 US 312
- Adkins v Children's Hospital, 261 US 525
- Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390
- Pierce v Society of Sisters, 268 US 510
- Farrington v Tokushige, 273 US 284
- Massachusetts Board v Murgia, 427 US 307

Okay, thank you. I'm going to run this by a few tax resisters and see what they have to say. If I don't see conclusive, and concise rebuttal's to each part, then I maybe inclined to confront the lot of them.

In the end, the Income tax is a dirty, under the table deal. Of course, there is this argument about part 825 or some such deal and could some one show me the records of where each of the state senate's passed th 16th amendment?.

By the way it's "Alfa November". It's also easy to misspell Juliett, Whiskey, and Xray.

ALPHA. >.> You stupid Americans!

And it's Juliette. =P

=P

[John J. Bulten]

And since an excise may be based upon the mere receipt of property, the receipt of pay for work may be taxed by an excise, regardless of the type of activity that generated the payment.

Unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.

Main Entry: Al·fa
Pronunciation: 'al-f&
-- a communications code word for the letter a

Main Entry: Ju·li·ett
Pronunciation: "jü-lE-'et
Etymology: probably irregular from Juliet
-- a communications code word for the letter j

See also:
http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/misunde ... gs/861.htm
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/r ... 130215.htm

[Imalawman]

could some one show me the records of where each of the state senate's passed the 16th amendment?

Doesn't matter in regards to income taxes derived from wages. That's because the income tax is an indirect tax that was constitutional before the 16th was ratified. The 16th only erased the Pollack decision which held, incorrectly, that income derived from property was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. Thus the 16th allows a tax on rental income, but it did nothing to changed the constitutional status of the income tax on wages. Justice White, who wrote the dissent in Pollack, wrote the majority opinion in Brubasher which held that the 16th gave congress no new powers in regards to an indirect income tax. An income tax is indirect which just has to be uniform (which it is) to pass constitutional muster.

[Demosthenes]

In the end, the Income tax is a dirty, under the table deal.

Actually it is a public law that was heavily and openly debated in 1913, and was passed with much fanfare from the masses because it replaced a really awful system of tariffs.

could some one show me the records of where each of the state senate's passed the 16th amendment?

Oh good lord, now you're buying into more conspiracy nonsense. The issue was resolved almost a hundred years ago, and if you apply it's tortured reasoning (that versions of the amendment that were ratified containing different spellings, punctuation, and capitalizations don't "count") then no Amendments to the Constitution were ever ratified until the 20th or so. In other words, if you buy into the "every copy must be identical" nonsense, the Bill of Rights was never ratified and slavery in the South is alive and well.

[LPC]

In general, statutory "wages" are not necessarily the same as pay for work. "Wages" are payments for activity within Congressional power to tax by excise, duty, or impost.

And since an excise may be based upon the mere receipt of property, the receipt of pay for work may be taxed by an excise, regardless of the type of activity that generated the payment.

The argument that the federal income tax is limited to income arising from "excisable activities" has no support in any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (or any other federal court) and has been rejected in 100% of the cases in which it has been raised.

For example:

“[P]etitioner argues that the income tax is an excise tax and that petitioner did not engage in any taxable excise activities during 1996, 1997, and 1998. The contentions made by petitioner in his petition and on brief are appropriately termed ‘tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish’, and we shall not dignify such arguments with any further discussion.”

Heisey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-41 (tax deficiencies affirmed, along with penalties for failure to file and failure to pay estimated taxes, and an additional penalty of $2,000 was imposed for filing a frivolous petition), aff’d 2003 TNT 66-47, No. 02-72675 (9th Cir. 3/20/2003), ($1,500 penalty imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).

“Petitioner argues that the income tax is an excise tax and that he did not engage in excise taxable activities in 1996. [Note 3: “Petitioner testified: ‘The income tax is an excise tax. Congress, who sets the laws, even says so in the Congressional Record. The income tax is therefore not a tax on income.’”] We shall not painstakingly address petitioner’s assertions ‘with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.’ [Citation omitted.] Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s deficiency determination.”

Sawukaytis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-156 (sanctions of $12,500 imposed), aff’d 2004-1 USTC ¶50,283, KTC 2004-186, Docket No. 02-2431 (6th Cir. 6/16/2004), (additional sanctions of $4,000 imposed for filing a frivolous appeal; the original tax in controversy was $13,976, plus a failure to file penalty of $726, so the total of the sanctions imposed by the Tax Court and Circuit Court exceeded the original amount in controversy), rehearing den. 8/6/2004, cert. den. No. 04-587 (12/6/2004).

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#privileges for additional information.

[Cpt Banjo]

And since an excise may be based upon the mere receipt of property, the receipt of pay for work may be taxed by an excise, regardless of the type of activity that generated the payment.

Unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.

The two most recent Supreme Court discussions of the nature of an excise under the Constitution (which are, not surprisingly, never referred to by the TP crowd) state as follows:

"Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912, this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned..." Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) (emphasis added)

"Receipt in possession and enjoyment is as much a taxable occasion within the reach of the federal taxing power as the enjoyment of any other incident of property." Fernandez v. Weiner, 326 U.S. 340 (1945)

"Juliet" is the preferred spelling for the NATO phonetic alphabet, even in Canada:
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawi ... c_Alphabet

[TMoore]

Oh good lord, now you're buying into more conspiracy nonsense. The issue was resolved almost a hundred years ago, and if you apply it's tortured reasoning (that versions of the amendment that were ratified containing different spellings, punctuation, and capitalizations don't "count") then no Amendments to the Constitution were ever ratified until the 20th or so. In other words, if you buy into the "every copy must be identical" nonsense, the Bill of Rights was never ratified and slavery in the South is alive and well.

No, that's not what I said. There's like three or so different declarations of independence I believe if you use that logic.

I'm asking, where are the records that the state's legislatures passed the amendment. I don't care of spelling, or what not. Just the records that it was voted on, because I was unable to find them. It may not matter, just curious.

Anyways, here we are, getting into the great debate that goes around and around and around... =P Be honest, I don't fully understand the issue that well, and my studies have been limited. But, tell the truth, you guys make better arguments than the IRS, who always doges the issue. Even their "tax argument refuted" page was less informative than this thread.

(And I'm being obtuse about the spelling. I always thought the spelling was done by someone who for reasons unknown, could not spell worth a dime)

[grammarian44]

I'm asking, where are the records that the state's legislatures passed the amendment. I don't care of spelling, or what not. Just the records that it was voted on, because I was unable to find them. It may not matter, just curious.

Where, specifically, did you look for them?

[Nikki]

Oh good lord, now you're buying into more conspiracy nonsense. The issue was resolved almost a hundred years ago, and if you apply it's tortured reasoning (that versions of the amendment that were ratified containing different spellings, punctuation, and capitalizations don't "count") then no Amendments to the Constitution were ever ratified until the 20th or so. In other words, if you buy into the "every copy must be identical" nonsense, the Bill of Rights was never ratified and slavery in the South is alive and well.

No, that's not what I said. There's like three or so different declarations of independence I believe if you use that logic.

I'm asking, where are the records that the state's legislatures passed the amendment. the National Archives I don't care of spelling, or what not. Just the records that it was voted on, because I was unable to find them. It may not matter, just curious.

Anyways, here we are, getting into the great debate that goes around and around and around... =P Be honest, I don't fully understand the issue that well, and my studies have been limited. But, tell the truth, you guys make better arguments than the IRS, who always doges the issue. Even their "tax argument refuted" page was less informative than this thread.

(And I'm being obtuse about the spelling. I always thought the spelling was done by someone who for reasons unknown, could not spell worth a dime)

That's the best place to start.

[Demosthenes]

I'm asking, where are the records that the state's legislatures passed the amendment. I don't care of spelling, or what not. Just the records that it was voted on, because I was unable to find them. It may not matter, just curious.

You'd have to physically visit the historical archives for each state that was in the union in 1909-1913 if you want to verify the original documents. For a list of ratification dates, the US Government Printing Office has a list here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/conamt.html

The several state legislatures ratified the Sixteenth Amendment on the following dates: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 27, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 1, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Kansas, March 2, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected the amendment at the session begun January 9, 1911); Wisconsin, May 16, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 3, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; Delaware, February 3, 1913; Wyoming, February 3, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913; New Jersey, February 4, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913; Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected the amendment on March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.

There are also literally dozens and dozens of articles in the New York Times online archives (they placed all of their articles going back to 1851 searchable online for people who subscribe). As each state ratified the Amendment, articles and political cartoons came out announcing the news and showing the progress of the ratification process.

[TMoore]

Just online, LoC, etc. I'll admit, not that deeply.

EDIT: Okay, thank you all for answering my questions...

I'll leave you with a final article. In the end, I'd really like to know why you all want them to go to prison or die so badly. Ed is a nut, but he's nothing like the spawn of serpents slithering around the District.

By Ron Dupuis
July 13, 2007 6:00 AM

Their eyes glanced toward each other from time to time in playful exuberance as if to say "no matter what I'm speaking about, or to whom, I'm thinking of you."

There was what I can only assume to be affectionate "pet faces" that made the other burst out laughing in mid-sentence or thought.

Then an elvish "I'm going to sit on your lap and hug you until you tell me you love me" prank that almost resulted in a chair collapsing.

Are you guessing Nancy and Ron Reagan?

Perhaps Ozzie and Harriett?

Even Romeo and Juliet?

Wrong! On all three counts, and any others you can think of.

The subjects in discussion are Ed and Elaine Brown of Plainfield, N.H. For those of you unfamiliar with the Browns, they are the couple sentenced to five years in prison by a federal judge last April and are currently armed and holed up in their 110-acre property in Northern New Hampshire.

There were many reasons for my visit. One of those reasons was to put a human face on these people, born of my generation and working class, but now, in a best-case scenario, faced with extended jail time, and in the worst, a violent death. Ed Brown has stated many times that he will die rather than spend one day in jail for standing up to an unjust government. The silver, clip-fed automatic gun he has tucked in his waistband, or the rifle leaning against the wall beside him gives me reason to take him very seriously.

My visit was not planned. I made the two-hour drive with no expectations. It was just a columnist's curiosity. While standing at the driveway entrance thinking I was alone, a car appeared from what seemed out of nowhere.

"May I help you?" was the question from the driver. To me the meaning was more like "Who are you and what are you doing here?" After what seemed and eternity of convincing him that I was not a federal agent, and not armed but merely a stuttering, nervous, fledgling writer looking for a story, I was asked "Would you like to meet them?"

The meeting took place on the front porch of their home. We sat in chairs and discussed everything from politics to religion. Except when Ed was discussing their current situation, he was both friendly and a little humorous. With a twinkle in his eye, and after I informed him how nervous I was, he lighted a pack of firecrackers while I wasn't looking and threw them into the front yard. After I came out from under my chair we all had a good laugh.

"Are you hungry" was asked as a plate of hamburger patties was brought from the house.

The next 45 minutes were spent like any other gathering of friends on a Sunday afternoon with burgers and chips and memories of growing up. I learned that the Browns met when Elaine hired Ed to work on a building when he was an exterminator 22 years ago and that they have been together ever since. I learned that Elaine was born in Rhode Island and was educated at Tufts as a dentist and that Ed was born in Boston's South End and considers life experience his primary education.

I finally learned that these two people seem more in love today then they ever could have been 22 years ago.

In my humble opinion, I have no idea what the final outcome of this situation is going to be. Elaine Brown feels that the government agents will not come in to arrest or forcibly take them away. That somehow an alternative solution will be found. Conversely Ed Brown feels that they will come using force and states that if the shooting starts he will "take a couple with him" before he dies.

On that Sunday afternoon the Browns were just a hospitable couple sharing their food with friends, supporters and one extremely nervous, sometimes stuttering columnist.

Watch for my next column titled "Me, Randy Weaver, and a pack of cigarettes!

Ron Dupuis is a longtime New Hampshire resident, a former state representative, and a freelance writer. His e-mail is drcdupuis@comcast.net. His Web site may be viewed at http://www.imho-nh.blogspot.com.

[Demosthenes]

And here's the trash Tyler is posting about us on the freestate forum:

http://newhampshireunderground.com/foru ... pic=9797.0

TylerM
AnCap Tennessee Refuge
Radical
Karma: 40
[applaud] [smite]
Posts: 110

Show me the Law? Here you go!
« on: Today at 03:04 PM » Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a question. A blog post of mine was taken to a anti-tax resistor site (a location of a bunch of militant IRS and H&R Block employees, I think) and I went on there to ask it be removed (as I had removed it from my site) and they all were glad to "show me the law". Well, they are making arguments that seem valid, except the IRS hasn't even gotten as deep as them.

There is just no limit to poor Tyler's koolaid drinking. Most of the people here make their money opposing the IRS on behalf of their clients.

Tyler copies some of the posts made here, and then continues his analysis.

So, what do you think? I'm thinking they are making a wall of playing cards, I just need to be seen the bricks edge on. This is sort of the highlights, they made other points as well.

Gosh, Tyler, since you think it's ok to copy and paste the posts from here to another forum, perhaps I should put your original blog entry back up at the beginning of this thread.

[TMoore]

*shifty eyes*

You guys are everywhere aren't you? You're Feds!



That's not trash talk, but seriously you guys do seem like a bunch of militant H&R Block employees. I'm just asking other people's opinions, and I cater my post to the people I'm communicating with.

And I was never asked if my blog could be reposted and I don't care. If I desire it to be removed, then I ask for it to be done so. If you want your arguments taken off a site where they might be seen by a number of tax protesters, then say so, though I think it would be to your detriment. I'm just trying to see everyone's opinions.

[grammarian44]

Just online, LoC, etc. I'll admit, not that deeply.

If you had looked for so much as 30 seconds online for where records of state votes on constitutional amendments are kept, you probably would have found out that when Congress passes a Constitutional amendment, the Archivist of the United States is charged by federal statute with the task of administering the states' votes; the Archivist notifies each state's governor of the proposed amendment; etc. If you had discovered these easily-accessible facts, you would have been prompted to inquire at the National Archives about records of votes.

I didn't know a thing about the process until I did a thirty-second search. Unless you're inept at using the web, you could have done the same.

The true reason you didn't find any records is that you never looked. You didn't look because you didn't want to find them. The reason you did not want to find any records is that finding the records would have challenged your conspiratorial mentality about government. You want to believe that secrets are being kept.

[TMoore]

[Voiceover: Coming this fall to FoxTv--

This is America as you've never dared to see it. Here the uncensored truth is shown in all its ugly reality. It is the story of an occupied couintry and the brave underground resistance that struggles on to rekindle the embers of freedom while all around them the masses meekly surrender themselves and collaborate with the forces of oppression. Tomorrow may bring capture and imprisonment, torture or even death. But they are ready to make whatever sacrifices are required. Theirs is a bitter struggle, one which only the hope of restoring liberty can make bearable. In the meantime they depend on each other for information, support, and to lighten the loneliness of fighting for their indifferent families and neighbors. And this is where they get together for those fleeting moments of comradship, the secret sanctuary nicknamed--

HOTEL FOXTROT]

[Queue drumroll and theme music remeniscent of Hogan's Heroes. Fade in on a shop. Simple sleds hang in a row along one wall. Scarves, gloves, and other cold weather gear fill the shelves. The man behind the counter looks up as a bell rings. A man enters.

Shopkeeper: May i help you?

Customer: I will not buy this parrot, it is scratched.

Shopkeeper: I'm sorry-- this is a tobogganist's.

Customer: Say no more!

[After glancing around to make sure there is no one else there, the shopkeeper pulls a lever under the counter. A hidden door swings back. The customer slips through. The door closes.]

[Dissolve to the next room It's fitted like a small clubhouse. There are posters on the wall with images of Thomas Payne, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Irwin Schiff on one wall. Above them, a handlettered banner says "HOTEL FOXTROT". Two men and a woman are already seated at one of the small tables. They look up as the customer enters.]

Man 1 (Alpha Dingbat): Sierra! We were afraid they'd caught you. What happened? Are youi ok?

Customer (Sierra Tahoe):I, um, i think i'm ok. But they got Whisky!

Alpha Dingbat: Who?

Sierra Tahoe: Come on A-Dog, you remember Whisky Breath! He gave you a ride to the clinic that time when you--

Alpha Dingbat (hastily): Oh, right, him. How'd it happen?

Woman (Delta Dishrag): Wait-- so now our codenames have nicknames? That's not in the manual!

Alpha Dingbat: You mean you haven't got the latest update, Double D? You need to get over to Lost Whooping Cranes and get one.

Delta Dishrag: Oh.

Sierra Tahoe: Twenty nine ninety five.

Man 2 (Kilo Wingnut): So what about Whisky?

Sierra Tahoe: I was at his place. He was out of tortilla chips so i was looking for some more in the garage when i heard the sound of the front door being knocked down and suddenly there was a lot of shouting and commotion. I quickly hid in the back of that old rambler of his. Someone came in but they didn't see me and left. Meanwhile i heard a lot of banging and screaming. I realized with a shivver that it was Whisky screaming. And-- it could have been me! Then everything turned quiet. I snuck out of hiding and checked the house. It had been completely trashed. Whisky was gone. But they left something.

Delta Dishrag: What?

Sierra Tahoe: A card. This one.
[He displays a card. It has a grinning helmeted feline head and the words; DEATH AND TAXES: THEY COME TO ALL AT LAST.

There is a collective gasp.]

Alpha Dingbat: The MelonCat!

[fade to black]

[Voiceover: Hotel Foxtrot. check into Fox for drama!]

I want royalty rights to this!

Seriously, I laughed until I was crying when I read that. Though it was satire, I must applaud the author for his creativity. xD I actually would like a show like that, but can I redo the nicknames? Just, no phonetic alphabet. I prefer Greek letters. =P And that first paragraph is actually very accurate.

Just online, LoC, etc. I'll admit, not that deeply.

If you had looked for so much as 30 seconds online for where records of state votes on constitutional amendments are kept, you probably would have found out that when Congress passes a Constitutional amendment, the Archivist of the United States is charged by federal statute with the task of administering the states' votes; the Archivist notifies each state's governor of the proposed amendment; etc. If you had discovered these easily-accessible facts, you would have been prompted to inquire at the National Archives about records of votes.

I didn't know a thing about the process until I did a thirty-second search. Unless you're inept at using the web, you could have done the same.

The true reason you didn't find any records is that you never looked. You didn't look because you didn't want to find them. The reason you did not want to find any records is that finding the records would have challenged your conspiratorial mentality about government. You want to believe that secrets are being kept.

No, I found all that. But I wanted to see vote, per vote records, because, yes. I don't trust an "ya, we passed that" wave from some government source, but like was said before, you'd have to go physically into the archives for that, so the point is moot.

[Demosthenes]

That's not trash talk, but seriously you guys do seem like a bunch of militant H&R Block employees.

Russell Kanning was an H&R Block employee. They hire seasonal nitwits with little or no training. In comparison, many of the people trying to help you with your questions have doctorates in law. No one is paid to be here, they all volunteer their time to help people like you and to get some amusement at the expense of arrogant ignorant assholes like Ed Brown.

The people posting here come from a variety of political beliefs; we have everything from knee jerk liberals to knee jerk republicans, big L Libertarians, and little l ones too. What you won't find here is any tolerance for stupid internet myths surrounding the tax laws. Just because people here show that A = A doesn't mean that we like A and wouldn't much rather see B take center stage.

For example, I sincerely doubt that Dan Evans (LPC) and I agree on any single issue in politics. But we do agree that the arguments peddled by tax protesters are not only wrong but kind of pathetic and rather than sit back and watch people like you jump off a cliff yelling "Gravity is a scam" we feel oddly compelled to try to explain that gravity is not just a good idea, it's the law. You may not like gravity (I certainly take issue with it now that I'm over 40...) but that doesn't change it's existence.

And I was never asked if my blog could be reposted and I don't care. If I desire it to be removed, then I ask for it to be done so. If you want your arguments taken off a site where they might be seen by a number of tax protesters, then say so, though I think it would be to your detriment. I'm just trying to see everyone's opinions.

Chill. I was just messing with you.

[grixit]

I release it unconditionally to the public domain. Do what you want with it. But if you liked that one, you really should read Webhick's stuff.